I know the whole color thing has been discussed before, but I'd just like to point out that the current series would have been difficult to impossible to depict meaningfully without color. From the glowing radioactive Red Bull to the orange hugeness of Fish's new form, B&W just would not have cut it.

Congrats to Jon for a wise artistic decision. I know color costs you more, but I think spending extra on the color inks is worth it.

Thanks! It's really changed the way I approach the strip, and I'm having more fun with it.

It's definitely taking more time to do the coloring than I thought it would, but I think the end result it worth it.

In Response to jon (#16060):

I thought the coloring would be done with a simple flood fill on the computer. All you need is a Goats palette with flesh, Phillip's hair, Fish orange, Neil/Bob gray, etc. but I'm obviously wrong.

In Response to Rich (#16069):

And sometimes it's that simple, but I find that more and more often it involves more than that.

In Response to jon (#16072):

Anti-Occamist.

In Response to zamphir (#16075):

Is that like an antioxidant? Because I heard they cure cancer.

I think there is a equation
*ahem*
the coolitude = (the awesomeness * the coloration)/the existance of the easter bunny

I don't quite remember it, a little drunk from watching the sox game

In Response to kornz (#16080):

Is there also an equation?

In Response to zamphir (#16082):

no, there is only a,
an is vastly inferior to a

In Response to kornz (#16084):

an is vastly inferior to a

Unless it's being used in "Gimme an F!".

In Response to zamphir (#16086):

Or when followed by -drew.

I believe there's also something about i before e...

In Response to sakuruth (#16092):

-drew

I keep trying to subtract a drew or two...

In Response to Grimicus (#16078):

they [antioch.edu]'re still researching.

In Response to unFalln (#16113):

Awww..

You had me for like one tenth of a second there. I thought for sure that you'd found a link to an Antioch research project on cancer.

But, no, again you disappoint me.

Maaayte.

In Response to zamphir (#16086):

wait, I wrote the word "coolitude" and you are complaining about a dropped "n"?

In Response to zamphir (#16114):

Have I disappointed you before? I've never before felt that goats forums placed expectations upon me.

I know there appear to be other people [goats.com] who are a tad disappointed by me here, but you too? this is almost enough to drive a man to drink. ah, crap, I missed out on lunch beers. time to check the work kitchen fridge...

In Response to unFalln (#16117):

Have I disappointed you before?
Only in a non-specific way.

But I've gotten used to it.

I agree. But then, I'm a JUNKIE for color, and coloring my own strip is the most fun part of the experience.(As well as the most time-consuming.)
      GOATS in black and white---I'm spoiled now. Keep it in color...
        HEY!!!!
        What does Deathalicious mean the ink color costs you more?? Was he being sarcastic? You don't color these by HAND do you? Coloring by computer is SOOOOO much easier.---Al

In Response to alschroeder (#16216):

...

yeesh.

In Response to zamphir (#16093):

I keep trying to subtract a drew or two...

It seems as though you've been unsuccessful up to this point, unless I'm missing something.

In Response to alschroeder (#16216):

What does Deathalicious mean the ink color costs you more?? Was he being sarcastic? You don't color these by HAND do you? Coloring by computer is SOOOOO much easier.

Actually, as any freshmen CS major will tell you, adding color adds an order greater difficulty in each pixel representation. Now, pixels are manufactured in the back of your monitor, and the manufacture of black and white pixels is very inexpensive -- in fact, the cost for creating a black pixel actually cancels out the cost for creating a white pixel. It is for this reason that the early Macintoshes used a gray background composed of a 1-pixel checkerboard of black and white pixels -- it had the net effect of costing no energy from the pixel generator in the rear of the monitor, which kept the Macs cool and prevented them from needing a powerful fan to keep cool.

Colored pixels, however, take anywhere from 4 to 16 times as much energy to generate than a white pixel, depending on hue, saturation, and brightness. Larger monitors have a larger energy source, but also have to shoot their pixels a farther distance to the screen. However, the ratio of energy source to distance is such that it is still always better, energy wise, to use a larger monitor, which is why most graphic designers aren't content with a monitor smaller than 17 inches.

These costs are generally minimal when you are merely surfing the web, but astronomical when using a pixel-cruncher like Photoshop (or a similar painting program), which for the purposes of graphic design loops through its pixel creation much more quickly to provide a "realtime" editing environment. Microsoft Paint is, of course, not affected.

The drains on the pixel generator with extended color Photoshopping and image editing means that monitors wear out 50% quicker, which is why you see most graphic designers needing to get newer and bigger monitors every two years or so, while most programmers stick with the same 15 inch monitor for years.

In Response to Deathalicious (#16295):

pixel generator

I love the smell of pseudo-science in the morning.

Look out! It's a grendade!

In Response to Deathalicious (#16295):

(Applause.)
      ...And obviously I will have to make my sarcasm more evident, since many are taking it at face value...(did they buy it? Of COURSE not.)
        By the bye, you left out how Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle affects pixels, and the photons it affects, and how it means when you're uncertain whether to have another beer or not, odd colored lights appear in the corner of your field of vision....that is pixels "bleeding" from the virtual to the real world. And how Godel's Incompletness Theorem means there is really no such thing as a SOLID color. Or that's what Stan Lee made Reed Richards say, and if we can't believe the science in FANTASTIC FOUR, what CAN we believe?
          Now, if someone could just explain why there was a BLACK fire hydrant at my son's school..(if there's a fire late at night, I have this vision of the firemen searching around for the fire hydrant, and it burns to ashes until someone happens to trip over it...)---Al

In Response to alschroeder (#16298):

...And obviously I will have to make my sarcasm more evident, since many are taking it at face value...(did they buy it? Of COURSE not.)

See, no one thought my posting was serious, otherwise someone would have modded it "Informative" instead of "Funny". I think it's all in the delivery, personally.

And you're wrong about the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (really, "principle of indeterminacy", because it is in fact *certain* that you don't know something, not that you're uncertain about something). It only governs quantum events, so a macroscopic activity like having another beer would not be covered. This still is not much comfort to Schroedinger's cat, though.

And how Godel's Incompletness Theorem means there is really no such thing as a SOLID color. Or that's what Stan Lee made Reed Richards say, and if we can't believe the science in FANTASTIC FOUR, what CAN we believe?

Actually, ironically enough, it's Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy that proves that solid color doesn't exist. The reason is that the principle states we can know exact information about either the shape of a photon's wavelength, or its point in space-time, but not both. Wavelength determines color, so if we know exactly what color it is (making it a solid hue), we can no longer definitively state the photon's location, so we cannot verify that the colored shape we are perceiving is solid, because the location of the photon is indeterminate. Conversely, if we know the precise location of all of the photons (making it a solid shape), we can no longer definitely state its wavelength and, thus, hue.

Of course, you can say that solid color does exist within a given range of indeterminancy, I suppose.

In Response to Deathalicious (#16313):

Yeah...drifting into real science for a minute, nanomachines might be able to change an object's color almost instantly, by affecting the wavelength it reflects off...want a red car for a date, a blue car for work, and a black car for a funeral? It could all be the same car..someday...

In Response to Deathalicious (#16295):

hmm... this makes sense to me... my previous understanding had been that there were pixel elves working in the back of my monitor carefully hand-crafting each pixel with love for precise placement on my monitor at the correct time and location.

However, since the purchase of my flat-panel monitor, I've been confused about where the pixel elves would live.